Israel – Daniel Secomb – Bible Teacherhttp://www.danielsecomb.com
Bringing you fresh insights from God's Word.Wed, 10 Oct 2018 21:04:20 +0000en-UShourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.9.936770340Attitudes of the Church Fathers Toward Jews From Ignatius to Augustinehttp://www.danielsecomb.com/attitudes-of-the-church-fathers-toward-jews-from-ignatius-to-augustine/
http://www.danielsecomb.com/attitudes-of-the-church-fathers-toward-jews-from-ignatius-to-augustine/#respondMon, 06 Apr 2015 11:42:12 +0000http://www.danielsecomb.com/?p=392Considering the period covered from Ignatius to Augustine is only the first four hundred years of Church History, I believe it is still sufficient in helping us to understand current attitudes that the Jews hold toward Christians and vice versa.

Sadly, as much as I would like to say that the church was light in the darkness and a beacon of hope to the Jewish people during this period—they were anything but that. Apart from the occasional glimmers of light as a result of correct Biblical understanding concerning treatment of the Jews by some Church Fathers, the vast majority of church history is stained by hostile anti-Judaic attitudes and shameful anti-Semitic behaviour.

To be fair, the vast majority of atrocities carried out in the name of the church were not carried out by genuine believers, but by “Christians” in name only. Yet, this does not let genuine believers off the hook. Probably, the most sobering revelation that this essay brings to light is that the hostile actions toward the Jews in early and medieval church history were directly related to the theological positions held by the church, which came to be known as ‘replacement theology’. As we shall see, some of the most prominent theologians and Church Fathers throughout church history have been behind some of the most damning examples of anti-Semitic rhetoric, which inevitably led to the anti-Semitic behaviour of those under their influence.

Ignatius of Antioch (ca. 35 to 50 – 98 to 117 AD)

We begin with Ignatius of Antioch with his writings from around 115 AD in which he instructs his readers to oppose all things Jewish. He claimed that the Hebrew prophets had lived according to Jesus Christ and not according to Jewish law.[1]

Justin Martyr (100 – 165 AD)

Justin Martyr is significant, because he was the very first Church leader to use the term ‘true Israel’ in referring to the church.[2] In his famous dialogue with the illusive Jewish figure Trypho, he comments on Isaiah 42:1-4 and writes, “Christ is the Israel and the Jacob, even so we, who have been quarried out from the bowels of Christ, are the true Israelite race”[3] Even though Justin’s dialogue with Trypho emphasised the great pains that Justin went to convert him and thus his zeal to convert the Jews, his views that the church was the ‘true spiritual Israel’ laid the groundwork for the growing belief that the church had superseded or replaced Israel.[4]

Irenaeus (130 – 202 AD)

Irenaeus, bishop of Lyon was an important figure in the second century who, as a young man witnessed Polycarp speak about his conversations with the Apostle John. In book 5 of his seminal work Against Heresies, Irenaeus cites key Old Testament prophetic passages referring to Israel to the gathering into the Church of “those that shall be saved from the nations.”[5] Passages such as, Isa 26:19; Eze 36:24-25; 37:12-14 are classic examples where he has done this and in particularly Jer 23:6-7 where it says, “people will no longer say, ‘As surely as the Lord lives, who brought the Israelites up out of Egypt,’ but they will say, ‘As surely as the Lord lives, who brought the descendants of Israel up out of the land of the north and out of all the countries where he had banished them.’” Irenaeus sees fulfilment of this passage (and the other mentioned passages) in the salvation of people from Gentile nations. Diprose expands on this:

By doing so [allegorising these passages] he disinherits Israel of promises which are clearly addressed to her and at the same time manifestly makes the Church the new or true Israel. In other words he bases his exegesis on the assumption that the Old Testament should be read in light of what we have called replacement theology, which he apparently considered to be part of orthodox Christian thought.[6]

Tertullian (160 – 225 AD)

In his work An Answer To The Jews, Tertullian seems more concerned about defending the Christian faith than listening to the error of the Jews. Yet he clearly articulates the two advents of Christ—one of humility and suffering and the other of glory and honour.[7] Yet some previous writings by Tertullian found in An Answer To The Jews, tend to minimise the importance of the Mosaic law and to consider physical circumcision a sign given to mark Israel out as a “contumacious people”.[8]

In one incident where a Jew wore a caricature of a donkey around his neck with the word in Latin “Onecoetes”, literally meaning “begotten of a donkey” in mockery of Jesus Christ. Tertullian in response, commented that the Jews are “the seed-plot of all the calumny against us.”[9]

Perhaps his most detrimental comment toward the Jews came from his use of Gen 25:21-23 in the opening paragraphs of Answer To The Jews, in which he makes the comment “the older will serve the younger” implying that the ‘older’ (Israel) will serve the ‘younger’ (the Church). He writes:

Accordingly, since the people or nation of the Jews is anterior in time, and ‘greater’ through the grace of primary favour in the Law, whereas ours is understood to be ‘less’ in the age of times, as having in the last era of the world attained the knowledge of divine mercy: beyond doubt, through the edict of divine utterance, the prior and ‘greater’ people—that is, the Jewish—must necessarily serve the ‘less’; and the ‘less’ people—that is, the Christian—overcome the ‘greater.’[10]

Consequently, this teaching only further solidified the Church’s belief of its superiority over the Jews and inevitably led toward an attitude of demanding servitude from the Jewish people.

Origin (182 – 254 AD)

Moving into the third century we come to one of the Church’s most celebrated theologians in Origin of Alexandria. Even though Origin knew Hebrew and studied the Bible with the Jews, his teaching served to distance Christian teaching even further away from its Hebraic roots. Origin popularised the hermeneutical principle of the allegorical interpretation of scripture, which he further developed from Jewish Platonist philosopher Philo and to a certain extent from Clement the former head of the Alexandrian School. Origin insisted on distinguishing between the literal and the spiritual meaning of the Biblical text, the spiritual meaning belonging to a higher order of ideas than the literal. He motivated this view by appealing to the principle of divine inspiration and by affirming that many statements made by the biblical writers were not literally true and that many events, presented as historical, were inherently impossible. Thus only ‘simple believers’ could limit themselves to the literal meaning of the text.[11]

Consequently, Origen’s allegorism allowed him to freely appropriate Old Testament passages where ethnic Israel is clearly intended while denigrating the Jewish people themselves. In his understanding, the only positive function of physical Israel is that of being a type of spiritual Israel. The promises were not made to physical Israel, because according to Origin, she was ‘unworthy’ of them and ‘incapable of understanding them.’ Thus Origen effectively disinherits physical Israel.

In Origin’s Commentary On Matthew and in his Old Testament Homilies, he comments on Matthew 19:6-8 and likens Israel to a divorced wife in whom an unseemly thing had been found. He writes, “And a sign that she has received the bill of divorce is this, that Jerusalem was destroyed along with what they called the sanctuary.”[12]

The great danger here with Origen’s method of interpretation is that ordinary churchmen basking in the glow of his awe-inspiring reputation, read his writings in the centuries afterward believing the idea that ‘true Israel had always been the church’ and this was something taught by the Bible itself.[13] Thus Origen laid the unfortunate theological foundation through which anti-Judaic attitudes could grow.

Emperor Constantine

In 325 AD, Constantine wrote a letter to those bishops who had not been present at the Council of Nicea concerning the date of Easter. The following consideration contained in this letter, “We ought not, therefore, to have anything in common with the Jews,” which sums up one of the key ideas behind much subsequent legislation against the Jews. All things Jewish were understood to be totally incompatible with Christianity. Consequently, this concept was reflected in the confessions, which in later centuries, Jewish converts to Christianity were required to make at the moment of their baptism.[14]

Ambrose (340 – 397 AD)

Ambrose, the archbishop of Milan, became one of the most influential ecclesiastical figures of the 4th century. Yet, Ambrose establishes himself as one of the most virulent opponents of the Jewish people. In the Easter of 387, while Augustine was baptized by Ambrose, Ambrose delivered his “Exameron” in a series of nine orations. In the ninth discourse, delivered on the sixth day, the bishop applied Jeremiah’s rhetorical question, “Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard change its spots?” (Jer 13:23), to the soul of the Jewish people. In doing so, he considered the Jews to be irrevocably perverse and incapable of any good thought.[15] This tied easily into his notion that “Jews” were a type of the infidel.[16]

The height of Ambrose’s anti-Semitism came about as a result of a letter he wrote to the Roman emperor Theodosius I in December 388. Diprose writes:

The local bishop of Callinicum, Syria, had apparently ordered the burning of a local synagogue and the Emperor had ordered him to have it rebuilt at his own expense. Ambrose ordered the emperor to change his mind on the grounds that burning a Jewish synagogue was not a crime. It is reported that on the following Sunday, Ambrose not only pitted the Church against the Synagogue in a sermon but also publicly enjoined the Emperor to annul the sentence previously issued against the bishop of Callinicum. Ambrose refused to continue the order of service until Theodosius had given him his word![17]

John Chrysostom (347 – 407 AD)

Perhaps the most bellicose anti-Semitic remarks were made by John Chrysostom, whose name ironically, translated as “golden mouthed”. According to Chrysostom:

The synagogue is worse than a brothel . . . it is the den of scoundrels and the repair of wild beasts . . . the temple of demons devoted to idolatrous cults . . . the refuge of brigands and debauchees, and the cavern of devils. [It is] a criminal assembly of Jews . . . a place of meeting for the assassins of Christ . . . a house worse than a drinking shop . . . a den of thieves; a house of ill fame, a dwelling of iniquity, the refuge of devils, a gulf and abyss of perdition.[18]

As for the Jewish people themselves Chrysostom commented, “I would say the same things about their souls.” and “As for me, I hate the synagogue . . . I hate the Jews for the same reason.” Furthermore, he accused the Jews of murdering their offspring[19] and of worshipping devils and not God.[20] He insisted that Jews were hated by God, and since they had murdered Jesus, they were no longer given the opportunity to repent.[21] He preached that God’s purpose in concentrating all their worship in Jerusalem was only to facilitate its destruction.[22] Moreover, the suffering inflicted upon them was an expression of the wrath of God and his absolute rejection of the Jewish people.[23] Finally, since God hated them, Christians were duty bound to hate them as well.[24]

Augustine (354 – 430 AD)

Augustine stands tall as arguably the most prominent figure and most influential figure in church history. Yet, as we shall see, Augustine’s treatment of the Jews has been detrimental, yet also helpful, as his teaching helped to save them from total decimation and yet preserved them for intentional humiliation. This was a feature of Augustine’s famous, yet obviously mistaken interpretation of Psalm 59:11, “Do not kill them [the Jews]; otherwise, my people will forget. By your power, make them homeless wanderers.” So he concluded:

Therefore God has shown the Church in her enemies the Jews the grace of His compassion, since, as saith the apostle, “their offence is the salvation of the Gentiles.” And therefore He has not slain them, that is, He has not let the knowledge that they are Jews be lost in them, although they have been conquered by the Romans, lest they should forget the law of God, and their testimony should be of no avail in this matter of which we treat. But it was not enough that he should say, “Slay them not, lest they should at last forget Thy law,” unless he had also added, “Disperse them;” because if they had only been in their own land with that testimony of the Scriptures, and not everywhere, certainly the Church which is everywhere could not have had them as witnesses among all nations to the prophecies which were sent before concerning Christ.[25]

So by way of imposition upon the text, David’s enemies are interpreted as the Jews, being enemies of the church. Unlike the ferocity of some earlier church fathers, Augustine’s influential attitude appears more temperate so that, with enforced humiliation, the vagabond Jews might be a testimony of God’s judgement on them according to Scripture.[26] Augustine insisted that Jews were not a challenge to Christianity but a ‘witness’ to it.[27] Consequently, the Augustinian legacy kept the Jews dispersed, disgraced, and depressed—except for the hope of their conversion.[28] Interestingly, in hindsight, Augustine’s invocation of Psalm 59, interpreted literally, ultimately safeguarded Jewish lives in the years and centuries to come.[29]

***

It is truly regrettable that the examples of anti-Semitism among Church Fathers featured in this essay are just a drop in the bucket compared to the full history of the Church. Hopefully, this essay has demonstrated that no one should be surprised at the occurrence of the crusades, inquisitions and pogroms that ensued. They happened as a result of bad theology, and the theologians who taught this perverse ‘replacement theology’ are just as guilty as the pseudo-Christians who carried out the anti-Semitic atrocities.

Neither should we be surprised that by the time the church age arrived at the time of the reformation, that Martin Luther could come out with such vehement bile and hatred toward the Jews in his notorious written work The Jews and Their Lies. Sadly, Martin Luther’s anti-Semitic legacy was championed by the Nazi party and played a significant role in the outworking of the Holocaust. Olsen makes this sobering point. “It is impossible to assume that Luther did not have any influence on Hitler and his views. Hitler refers to Martin Luther as one of the great reformers of history, and as such, one of the ‘great warriors of this World.’”[30]

Concerning what we have examined, it is no wonder that many Jews today are indifferent, even hostile toward the Christian message. So much so, that Jewish believers in Jesus would rather go by the name ‘Messianic Jew’ then refer to themself as a ‘Christian’, as the ‘Christian’ label has been a hindrance in Jewish evangelism.[31]

It certainly leaves us wondering what might have been, if the church followed Paul’s reasoning in Romans 11 to provoke the Jews to jealousy—that our life in Christ would be a life that they would want for themselves, perhaps the Jews would have been won over by now? Unfortunately, among the Jewish people there are many misgivings and long memories to content with. Yet, I agree wholeheartedly with this statement from Messianic Jewish scholar Michael Brown:

I am convinced that international Christian repentance for the Church’s past (and present) sins against the Jews will lead to international Jewish repentance for Israel’s past (and present) sins against Jesus. It is the Church’s tears of repentance that will wash away the stain of blood.[32]

Bibliography

Primary Sources

Ambrose, Sermons

Augustine, City of God

Chrysostom, J. Eight Orations Against the Jews

Ignatius of Antioch, To The Magnesians

Irenaeus, Against Heresies

Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho

Origin, Commentary On Matthew

Tertullian, An Answer To The Jews

Secondary Sources

Becker, A.H., Reed, A.Y. (eds), 2007, The Ways That Never Parted: Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, Fortress Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

]]>http://www.danielsecomb.com/attitudes-of-the-church-fathers-toward-jews-from-ignatius-to-augustine/feed/0392The History of Christian Zionism in Post-Luther, Pre-Darby Britain 1550-1850http://www.danielsecomb.com/the-history-of-christian-zionism-in-post-luther-pre-darby-britain-1550-1850/
http://www.danielsecomb.com/the-history-of-christian-zionism-in-post-luther-pre-darby-britain-1550-1850/#respondWed, 15 Jan 2014 04:51:13 +0000http://www.danielsecomb.com/?p=349There are two definitions to be grasped at the outset of this essay. “Zionism” and “Christian Zionism”. Zionism is simply the belief that the Jewish people have been given the land of Israel by covenant promise to God and have a current right to occupy that land. Christian Zionists are Christians who agree with this belief.[1]

One of the key arguments from opponents of Christian Zionism is the argument that Christian Zionism has only been around for the past two hundred years. What the critics are obviously referring to is the advent of dispensationalism with John Nelson Darby who rose to prominence in the latter half of the nineteenth century. Donald Wagner, says in his book Anxious For Armageddon that ‘Darby was its greatest apostle and missionary [of Christian Zionism], the apostle Paul of the movement.’[2] The aim of this essay is to demonstrate that Christian Zionism was not an idea propagated by Darby, even though he may have certainly popularised it through the rise of dispensationalism, but rather it was a widespread belief held by a number of prominent church figures and theologians over the three hundred year period. To keep this essay brief, we will focus predominately on the contributions to Christian Zionism from Britain.

A significant observation of Christian Zionism in this period of church history is its partnership with Premillennialism. The reason why this is the case is because the same literal hermeneutic they applied to scripture to arrive at a Premillennialist position also naturally causes them to arrive at a Christian Zionist position. If the biblical promises made by God to Israel are to be taken literally and still apply to Israel today, and not the church, it should not be surprising to anyone that such a view leads one to take on board the belief of Christian Zionism.

Eschatological Background In The Aftermath of the Reformation

The eschatological background in the aftermath of the reformation was predominately amillennialist and anti-Judaic. Even there is a general consensus among scholars that early Christian interpretations of Biblical prophecy were predominately premillennial,[3] however, by the time of Origen, it had dramatically declined. The rise of the Alexandrian School was a major factor in the rejection of chiliastic beliefs. Origen, who was the theologian of the school, openly attacked chiliasm and introduced the allegorical method of interpretation by which he interpreted spiritually and not literally the passages of Scripture, which announced the millennium.[4] Then came the arrival of Augustine and his amillennialist manifesto City of God by which he ‘spiritualized’ the references to one thousand years in Revelation 20:1–10 to suggest that the reign of Christ referred to one thousand years of Christian history, a period he identified as ‘the sixth millennium, the sixth day,’ or, alternatively, to ‘the whole period of this world’s history.’[5] Israel had been spiritually allegorised as the church that took on the name ‘the New Israel’ who has usurped the covenants and promises made to ethnic Israel. Consequently, the land of Israel had been spiritualized to mean heaven, which negated the land to have anything to do with future prophetic events, especially a return of the Jews. Augustine instituted amillennialism as the official eschatological position in the Roman Catholic Church and consequently banned millennialism, declaring it a heresy. In the centuries following Augustine were a number of other influential church fathers who continued the supercessionist sentiment in the church up to the time of the Reformation including Pope Gregory the Great, John Calvin, Erasmus and finally Martin Luther. Martin Luther, an Augustinian monk himself, articulated his understanding that God had once and for all rejected the Jews in his writing, The Jews and Their Lies. In it he writes:

Therefore this work of wrath is proof that the Jews, surely rejected by God, are no longer his people, and neither is he any longer their God. This is in accord with Hosea 1:9, “Call his name not my people, for you are not my people and I am not your God.” Yes, unfortunately, this is their lot, truly a terrible one. They may interpret this as they will; we see the facts before our eyes, and these do not deceive us.[6]

And so leading up to the Reformation, the groundwork had been laid, and the seeds of Christian Zionism were forced to grow through the thorn bushes of anti-semitism and supercessionism.

Late 16th Century

In broad terms, the eschatology of the late sixteenth century perpetuated Augustinianism, the result being that chiliasm continued to be associated with certain extremist segments of Anabaptism.[7] However, the fruit of the Reformation brought about an interesting development. Wycliffe’s translation of the Bible into English (c.1382) paved the way for William Tyndale’s translation of the New Testament into English in 1525/6, Myles Coverdale’s English translation of the Bible in 1535,[8] and the Geneva Bible in 1560. The main gift of the Reformation was that more than ever before, the Bible was now in the language of the people. As a result, the scriptures gained prominence in European society and brought about a new wave of interest in the prophetic aspects of the scriptures. Scholar Thomas Ice elaborates on this development;

Thus, so it would come to be, that the provision of the Bible in the language of the people would become the greatest spur to the rise of Christian Zionism. The simple provision of the Bible in the native tongue of the people, which gave rise to their incessant reading and familiarization of it, especially the Old Testament, was the greatest soil that yielded a crop of Christian Zionism over time. It was a short step from a near consensus belief in the conversion of the Jews by the end of the Reformation period to the widely held view among post-Reformation Puritans in the restoration of Israel to her covenant land.[9]

Calvin’s successor Theodore Beza in the 1560’s influenced the English and Scots exiles who produced the Geneva Bible that the Jews would be converted in the end times, as expressed in a note on Romans 11:15 and 26.[10] Peter Martyr Vermigli had written a commentary on Romans based on the Geneva Bible and wrote a careful exposition of the eleventh chapter, which prepared the way for a general adoption amongst the English Puritans on a belief in the future conversion of the Jews. This view was then adopted by such great Reformation and Puritan theologians as William Perkins, Richard Sibbes, Thomas Goodwin, William Strong, William Bridge, George Gillespie and Robert Baillie, to name but a few.[11]

One Cambridge student who was influenced by Martyr’s commentary was Hugh Broughton (1549–1612), ‘the first Englishman to propose going as a missionary to the Jews in the Near East’, and one of the first ‘to propose the idea of translating the New Testament into Hebrew for the sake of the Jews.’[12] For an Englishman, he was ironically referred to as a ‘rabbinic Hebrew scholar’ and held the belief that the book of Revelation was the Gentile counterpart to the book of Daniel, whose prophecies, he maintained, were confined to the Jews. Broughton was undoubtedly one of the leading forerunners of the Restorationist movement, believing that God’s blessing would rest upon the nation, which answered such a noble call.[13]

One of the very first Englishmen to express a clear view that the Jews should be restored to their land was Francis Kett (1547–1589).[14] He was a controversial figure in that he espoused a form of Arianism in which he denied the divinity of Jesus. Yet, in 1585, he had published a book entitled The Glorious and Beautiful Garland of Mans Glorification Containing the Godly Misterie of Heavenly Jerusalem. While the book was focused on other eschatological matters, particularly the New Jerusalem, there was a section in the book which Kett mentioned “the notion of Jewish national return to Palestine.” This notion, which some think was likely gaining many followers, was deemed heretical to the English establishment of the day.[15] Consequently, on January 14, 1589, Kett was burnt to death in the ditch of Norwich Castle for his Arian beliefs, but more notably for expressing such views about the Jews return to their land, an idea he claimed to have received from reading the Bible.[16]

Towards the end of the sixteenth century, the topic of the restoration of the Jews to their land became the subject of serious theological debate.[17] Two key contributors who were both strict Calvinists, were Edmund Bunny (1540–1619), who outlined his understanding of the Jewish restoration to their land in the books: The Scepter of Ivday (1584) and The Coronation of David (1588) and Andrew Willet (1562–1621) with his publication of works from 1590.[18]

The 17th Century

The new evangelical millennialism continued to emerge out of Puritanism at the beginning of the seventeenth century, as theologians began to reassess the eschatological consequences of their creedal communities’ rejection of millennial belief.[19] Crawford Gribben, a scholar specialising on Millennialism explains a significant development culminating with the emergence of the seventeenth century;

In addition, a growing awareness of and interest in Hebraic language, literature and culture which encouraged protestant theologians across confessional divisions to take seriously the wider implications of the Jewish conversions they expected in the latter days. Specifically, as they returned to detailed study of Hebrew prophetic texts, many of these writers began to moot the possibility of a Jewish return to the Promised Land.[20]

As the seventeenth century progressed it became increasingly common for Puritans to discourse on the conversion of the Jews, not only in Biblical commentaries, but in Parliamentary sermons as well.[21] And so, a flurry of books advocating Jewish restoration to their land began to appear as well. Thomas Draxe released in 1608, The Worldes Resurrection: On the general calling of the Jews, A familiar Commentary upon the eleventh Chapter of Saint Paul to the Romaines, according to the sense of Scripture. Draxe argued for Israel’s restoration based upon his Calvinist and Covenant Theology.[22]

Arguably the most influential figure from the seventeenth century for the cause of Christian Zionism was Thomas Brightman (1552–1607). He has been described as ‘the first Puritan Judeo-centrist’, based on his belief that the millennium would be inaugurated by the conversion of the Jews.[23] His two most recognised written works featuring Christian Zionism were Apocalypsis Apocalypseos (1609) (published in English as A Revelation of the Apocalyps (1611)) and his famous commentary on the book of Revelation, A Revelation of the Revelation (1615). It has been claimed that Brightman’s commentary on Revelation, which was a blend of pre- and postmillennial concepts, contains ‘the single strongest impulse in Great Britain in support of the doctrine of Jewish national restoration’.[24] In the commentary he writes, “how the Jews will return from the areas North and East of Palestine to Jerusalem and how the Holy Land and the Jewish Christian church will become the centre of a Christian world.” Brightman wrote: “What, shall they return to Jerusalem again? There is nothing more certain; the prophets do everywhere confirm it.”[25] Brightman’s influence in bringing Christian Zionism to the forefront was felt significantly. In fact, the polemic Donald Wagner depicts Brightman in his book Anxious For Armageddon as ‘the first futurist premillennial dispensationalist’[26] and ‘the British forerunner of Christian Zionism, a type of John the Baptist in this field’[27] and as ‘the father of Christian Zionism’.[28]

Another giant of the early seventeenth century advocating Christian Zionism was Joseph Mede (1586–1638). Known as the father of English premillennialism, he outlined his firm belief of the Jews being restored to their homeland in his written work The Key of the Revelation in 1627 in Latin and in 1642 in English.

Following in the footsteps of Mede was Thomas Goodwin (1600–1680) who also saw the Jews one day returning to Israel. In An Exposition of the Book of Revelation (1639), he taught that the Jews would be converted to Christ by 1656.[29]

Giles Fletcher (1549–1611), a fellow at King’s College, Cambridge and Queen Elizabeth’s ambassador to Russia wrote a work advocating Restorationism. Fletcher’s book, Israel Redux: or the Restauration of Israel; or the Restauration of Israel exhibited in two short treatises (shortened title) was published posthumously by the Puritan Samuel Lee in 1677. Fletcher cites a letter in his book from 1606 as he argues for the return of the Jews to their land. Fletcher repeatedly taught the “certainty of their return in God’s due time.”[30]

Sir Henry Finch (1558–1625) was probably the most distinguished of all Christian Zionists in the early seventeenth century. He was a legal officer to King James I, a Member of Parliament for Canterbury, and in 1616, he was made a knight of the realm. His seminal work entitled, The World’s Resurrection or The

Calling of the Jewes. A Present to Judah and the Children of Israel that Ioyned with Him, and to Ioseph (that valiant tribe of Ephraim) and all the House of Israel that Ioyned with Him was published in 1621. In it he taught that the biblical passages that speak of a return of these people [the Jews] to their own land, their conquest of enemies and their rule of the nations are to be taken literally, not allegorically as of the Church.[31] Little did Finch realise the controversy that would ensue. King James of England was incensed by Finch’s statement that all nations would become subservient to the nation of Israel at the time of her restoration. Finch and his publisher were quickly arrested and thrown into prison, while he was examined by the High Commissioner. Several weeks later, he was released, yet the ordeal had taken its toll. Consequently, Finch was striped of his status, lost his reputation, had his possessions confiscated, was plagued by poor health and died penniless a few years later. However, despite his horrible persecution, his influence was immense. Kobler explains, “But Finch’s ordeal could no longer deter his disciples. Originally confined to individual scholars, the anticipation of a Restoration of the Jews became an increasingly general notion in England in the forties of the seventeenth century.”[32]

Many Puritans of the seventeenth century taught the restoration of the Jews to the Holy Land. Arguably, one of the most prominent Puritans of the era was John Owen (1616–1683). He wrote, “The Jews shall be gathered from all parts of the earth where they are scattered, and brought home into their homeland.” From the first quarter of the seventeenth century, belief in a future conversion of the Jews became commonplace among the English Puritans. Interestingly, many who believed in the conversion of the Jews also came to believe in Jewish restoration as well.[33]

The 18th Century

William Whiston (1667–1752), was Isaac Newton’s successor as a Cambridge mathematician and famous as the translator of Josephus, advanced this combination of high and low cultures in his privately-expressed conviction that the Temple would be rebuilt, the Jews restored to the Promised Land, and the millennium begun by 1766.[34]

Samuel Collet dedicated his seminal work Treatise of the Future Restoration of the Jews and Israelites to their own Land (1747) to the Jews. He prophetically writes, “…to show, that you, who are now dispersed among the Nations, will, in a short time, with the rest of the Israelites, be restored to your Land, and enjoy there the greatest Prosperity, and that, through you, all the Nations will be blessed.”[35]

Arguably, the most significant work of the seventeenth century was Joseph Eyre’s Observations upon the Prophecies relating to the Restoration of the Jews (1771), which was written in response to Bishop William Warburton’s allegorical approach to scripture, which denied Israel’s future restoration. He writes, “…appears to me to be no other way applicable to any state of Christianity that has ever yet existed, but to relate to the conversion and restoration of the literal Israel, the Jews and the ten tribes.”[36]

According to Kobler, the Puritan era has been called the Golden Age of England and was really the cradle of the British Movement for the Restoration of the Jews to Palestine.[37]

1800 to 1850

The 1800’s marks a high point in British premillennialism and a corresponding apex for Christian Zionism. Many contemporary accounts critical of Christian Zionism focus their emphasis upon John Nelson Darby and the rise of dispensationalism as the foundation for British Restorationism, but this is not the case. Surprisingly, the real advocates of Christian Zionism in Britain during this century were primarily Anglican premillennialists. By the mid-nineteenth century, about half of all Anglican clergy were evangelical premillennialists.[38]

Edward Irving (1792–1834) was described as a ‘bizarre figure in the London of the 1820’s’ and ‘a scrappily educated Scot’ who achieved ‘unexpected eminence’.[39] He was a Church of Scotland minister with a reputation as “the greatest orator of the age” and was credited as a key figure who helped turn the eschatological tide toward premillennialism.[40] His work Babylon and Infidelity Foredoomed (1826) caused the belief in the promised restoration of Israel to rise to prominence following its publication. His influence was widespread, and made a lasting impression on a young Horatius Bonar.[41]

Christian Zionism went from the theological realm to the political realm with Anthony Ashley Cooper (1801–1885), later known as Lord Shaftesbury from 1851. His activities in the first half of the century included lobbying Lord Palmerston, the British Foreign Secretary, using political, financial and economic arguments to convince him to help the Jews return to Palestine. And Palmerston did so. What was originally the religious beliefs of Christian Zionists became official British policy (for political interests) in Palestine and the Middle East by the 1840s.[42] Lord Shaftesbury believed that the Jews would return to their homeland in conjunction with the second advent, he “never had a shadow of a doubt that the Jews were to return to their own land. . . It was his daily prayer, his daily hope.”[43]

The Bonar brothers were both ministers of the Free Church of Scotland who were involved with revival movements and adhered to the doctrine of premillennialism. Horatius Bonar (1808–1889) is better known today as a hymn writer, yet his overall ministry in Scotland was of far greater dimensions, both practically and scholarly, especially in regard to his preaching and teaching.[44] He wrote a number of works but his most significant contribution to Christian Zionism came from The Jew (1870). In it he says, “I am one of those who believe in Israel’s restoration and conversion; who receive it as a future certainty, that all Israel shall be gathered, and that all Israel shall be saved.”[45] and prophetically claims, “I believe that the sons of Abraham are to re-inherit Palestine, and that the forfeited fertility will yet return to that land; that the wilderness and the solitary places shall be glad for them, and the desert will rejoice and blossom as the rose.”[46]

Horatius’ younger brother Andrew was also a minister of the Free Church of Scotland and like his older brother, also wrote a number of written works. The two most prominent was the biography The Biography of Robert Murray M’Cheyne and A Narrative of a Mission of Inquiry to the Jews from the Church of Scotland in 1839 which was based on a fact finding tour of Palestine embarked upon by himself, Alexander Keith, Alexander Black and Robert Murray M’Cheyne under the auspices of the Church of Scotland. On their return, their report was widely publicized in Great Britain and it was followed by a ‘Memorandum to Protestant Monarchs of Europe for the restoration of the Jews to Palestine.’ This memorandum was printed verbatim in the London Times, including an advertisement by Lord Shaftsbury igniting an enthusiastic campaign by the Times for the restoration of the Jews.[47]

Other men who made contributions to Christian Zionism in the first half of the nineteenth century include, George Stanley Faber, J.B. Webb, Edward Bickersteth, Charles Simeon, Charles Jerram, John Aquila Brown, John Fry, John Hooper, William Wilberforce, Henry Drummond, Hugh McNeile, William Cuninghame, Lewis Way, William Witherby, Thomas Witherby, Samuel Roffey Maitland, William Burgh and Joseph Tyso.

Moving into the second half of the nineteenth century, Christian Zionism continued to advance both theologically and politically. Theologically through the likes of J.C. Ryle, Charles Spurgeon and significantly John Nelson Darby as he took his dispensational brand of Christian Zionism over to America, where it began to spread like wildfire at the turn of the twentieth century.

Politically, the latter half of the nineteenth century would continue to gather momentum that would payoff later in British control of Palestine. Other political advocates who made contributions included, Lord Lindsay, Lord Palmerton, Disraeli, Lord Manchester, Holman Hunt, Sir Charles Warren and Hall Caine. It was in this period that one observes the “gradual drift from purely religious notion to the political.” These two influences, of religion and politics, would merge into a powerful team the lead to the Balfour Declaration and the eventual founding of the Jewish state in the twentieth century.[48]

Considering the vast evidence of the groundswell of Christian Zionism between Luther and Darby, the critics of Christian Zionism continue to blame for the origins of the movement in an effort to discredit it as historically shallow before Darby arrived on the scene. Wagner continues this theme when he says, “Lord Shaftsbury, was convinced of Darby’s teachings.”[49] Fellow anti-Christian Zionist, Stephen R. Sizer, echoes Wagner’s misguided views when he says of Shaftsbury: “He single-handedly translated the theological positions of Brightman, Henry Finch, and John Nelson Darby into a political strategy.”[50] Yet, this could not be further from the truth. Dispensational scholar Thomas Ice makes this powerful observation:

I have never found, within the writings of the specialists on Christian Zionism, anyone who makes more than a brief mention of Darby. No one includes him among those who could be considered even a quasi-significant Restorationist. In fact, Barbara Tuchman, whose work Bible and Sword is considered the most significant and comprehensive treatment of British Christian Zionism does not even mention Darby at all.[51]

So the brave individuals who endured persecution and ridicule over the centuries for the belief in God’s plan for the Jewish people to be restored back to their land, have the high honour of playing a part in a remarkable period of prophetic fulfilment as foretold in the Holy Scriptures.

God’s plan to bring back his people to the land was always going to happen in the fullness of his time. Nowhere in the scriptures does it imply that the Jews would be shut out permanently from the land, but rather we read in Deut 30:1-5 that it is always in God’s plan to bring them back after their period of punishment for their disobedience has taken its course. Interesting that it was three years after the horrors of the Holocaust that the Jewish people would rise from the ashes and find rebirth as a nation for the first time in 2000 years in the land of their ancestors. The prophet Ezekiel’s prophecy rings true,

Then he said to me: “Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel. They say, ‘Our bones are dried up and our hope is gone; we are cut off.’ Therefore prophesy and say to them: ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: O my people, I am going to open your graves and bring you up from them; I will bring you back to the land of Israel. Then you, my people, will know that I am the Lord, when I open your graves and bring you up from them. I will put my Spirit in you and you will live, and I will settle you in your own land. Then you will know that I the Lord have spoken, and I have done it, declares the Lord.’” – Ezekiel 37:11-14

[32] Franz Kobler, The Vision Was There. A History of the British Movement for the Restoration of the Jews to Palestine, London (1956), 15. Online: http://www.britam.org/vision/Kobler.pdf [cited: November 24, 2012]

]]>http://www.danielsecomb.com/the-history-of-christian-zionism-in-post-luther-pre-darby-britain-1550-1850/feed/0349The Anti-Semitism of Martin Lutherhttp://www.danielsecomb.com/the-anti-semitism-of-martin-luther/
http://www.danielsecomb.com/the-anti-semitism-of-martin-luther/#respondTue, 22 Oct 2013 12:51:28 +0000http://www.danielsecomb.com/?p=337Towards the end of his life, Martin Luther espoused vehement views towards the Jews in his writing and sermons. His most famous of anti-Semitic written works was On The Jews and Their Lies (1543), where Luther refers to the Jews as, “an incorrigible whore and an evil slut”,[1] “the multitude of the whoring and murderous people”,[2] “the devil incarnate”,[3] “…let themselves be slaughtered like wretched cattle”[4] and most damnably “We are at fault in not slaying them.”[5]

How did Martin Luther get to the point of being that hateful toward the Jews? I believe there are three reasons for Luther’s anti-Semitism.

His failure in Jewish evangelism

Initially, Luther was sympathetic towards the Jews in the hope that they would be won over to Christianity, but as the Jews persisted in their resistance to Luther’s appeals, Luther was greatly frustrated and began to speak out against them.[6]

Outside peer influence

There are three key people who could of played an integral part in influencing Luther toward his anti-Semitism. Firstly, Erasmus could’ve played a role in influencing Luther, particularly considering Erasmus said: “If it is Christian to hate Jews, then we are all good Christians.”[7] Secondly, it’s quite possible that Luther could’ve been influenced by Anton Margaritha’s anti-Semitic book Der gantze Jüdisch Glaub (The Whole Jewish Belief), which he read in 1539.[8] Finally, we should point out that Luther was heavily influenced by Augustine and also possibly by his anti-Judaic legacy, which ultimately would’ve contributed to the formulation of Luther’s doctrine of supersessionism.

His strong sense of German nationalism

Martin Luther and German nationalism are inextricably linked. It has been argued that Luther’s message was “not for Christendom, but for the German people – for he was not a Christian, he was first and foremost a German.”[9] As for the Jews, Luther viewed the Jewish community not only as a religious congregation but as a separate race. By default, then, Jewish meant anti-German.[10]

In conclusion, Martin Luther’s relationship with the Jews was doomed to failure, considering his influences, experiences and cultural upbringing. Sadly, Martin Luther’s anti-Semitic legacy was championed by the Nazi party and played a significant role in the outworking of the Holocaust. If only Luther could have seen the full germination of his seeds of hate, he would have been able to avoid being implicated as an influence in one of the greatest human tragedies in world history.

]]>http://www.danielsecomb.com/the-anti-semitism-of-martin-luther/feed/0337Yeah, But I Just Don’t Get That ‘Israel’ Thinghttp://www.danielsecomb.com/yeah-but-i-just-dont-get-that-israel-thing/
http://www.danielsecomb.com/yeah-but-i-just-dont-get-that-israel-thing/#respondFri, 14 Dec 2012 13:03:42 +0000http://www.danielsecomb.com/?p=247

One of the most common things I hear when it comes to discussing God’s plan and purpose for Israel is, “Yeah, but I just don’t get that ‘Israel’ thing”. Considering the amount of silence in the church regarding teaching on modern day Israel, it is quite understandable that so many Christians fail to grasp the essential truths distinguishing Israel and the church. Unfortunately, as a result of the vacuum of teaching on Israel, a destructive false teaching has entered the church called “replacement theology”, also known as “supercessionism”.

Replacement theology teaches that the church has replaced Israel and has usurped the callings, covenants, gifts and promises that God originally gave to Israel. It teaches that modern day Israel has nothing to do with the Biblical Israel and has nothing to do with end times teaching. Christians who reject replacement theology (such as myself) are widely known as “Christian Zionists”. Zionism is simply the belief that the Jewish people have been given the land of Israel by covenant promise to Abraham and his descendants through the line of Isaac and Jacob and have a current right to occupy that land. Christian Zionists are Christians who agree with this belief.[1]

This blog aims to explain that the purpose of the church is not to replace Israel, but rather to expand Israel to represent both Jews and Gentiles in the millennial reign of Christ. This theological thought has profound implications in regard to Christian life and practice, as the church realises her responsibility to place priority on Jewish evangelism and to collectively acknowledge the debt owed to the Jewish people for their spiritual heritage which we now share.

Replacement Theology and Its Damaging Repercussions

Champion of replacement theology, Stephen Sizer has said that Jews have forfeited their place with the rejection of Jesus while he was among them and as a result have been denied divine individuality, nationality, and territory.[2] Sizer cites Matthew 21:33-46, where Jesus says in v.43 “Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit” as a categorical statement made by Jesus in which he specifically rules out any notion that Israel would enjoy a divinely mandated national identity as a kingdom in the future.[3] This teaching that Sizer and his associates have been spreading has gained significant momentum, and as a result, many evangelicals today have gone to great lengths to distance themselves from biblical Christian Zionism. It is true to say that from this scripture that the Kingdom of God is taken away from a ‘people’, but is it speaking of the Jewish people as a whole?

The Mystery of Israel and the Church: Olive Tree Enlarged, Not Replaced

In Romans 11, Paul goes to great lengths to emphasize that God has not rejected the Jews and explains the redemptive framework by which Gentiles are saved. Paul cleverly uses an allegory of an olive tree, which is both a representation of Israel (considering Jer 11:16 and Hosea 14:6) as well as a representation of God’s plan of salvation. Jesus affirms in John 4:22 that “salvation is of the Jews” and Paul in Eph 2:12 says that before Christ, Gentiles were “separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world.” Jeremiah made it clear in Jer 31:31 that the New Covenant is to be made “with the house of Israel and the house of Judah” and Paul in Rom 9:4 says that “the covenants” belong to the people of Israel, which obviously includes the New Covenant.

And so with the allegory of the olive tree in Rom 11, Paul goes into detail how the Gentiles partake of the New Covenant and attain salvation. He says that branches have been broken off to make room for believing Gentiles (v.17-19). But, who represents the people who were broken off? The answer cannot be the entire Jewish people, as Sizer and the other replacement theologians believe. The allegory is not about a tree being replaced with a completely different tree. Paul explains that branches have been broken off as a result of unbelief (cf. 20). Jews who have hardened their hearts and refused to acknowledge Jesus as their Messiah and believe in him for their salvation. This makes so much sense revisiting the Parable of the Tenants in Matt 21:33-46, as it was the tenants who were doing the persecuting and were implicated in the killing of the landowners son. This is certainly not speaking of all of Israel, as it was not all of Israel that rejected Jesus. Many of the Jews in Israel believed that Jesus was their Messiah and did not want him to be killed.[4] When Jesus said, “the kingdom of God will be taken away from you” he was speaking directly to the chief priests and the elders and Matthew makes a poignant remark in v.45 by saying “When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard Jesus’ parables, they knew he was talking about them.” So, as a result, this new concept that came in with the church links Israel to the new community of both Jews and Gentiles who believe in Jesus and consequently excludes those Jews who do not.[5] In Eph 3:6, Paul spells out the mystery of the purpose of the church, “This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.”

The Eschatological Destiny of Israel and the Church

Considering the marvellous mystery of the purpose of the church, where does all this lead eschatologically? Remarkably, Paul makes the startling admission that; “Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in.” Remarkably, Israel’s final salvation is predicated upon the prior salvation of the Gentiles.[6] So once the redemptive program of the church has concluded, God will turn his attention back to Israel, as was prophesied in Isaiah 14:1-2:

The Lord will have compassion on Jacob; once again he will choose Israel and will settle them in their own land. Aliens will join them and unite with the house of Jacob. Nations will take them and bring them to their own place. And the house of Israel will possess the nations as menservants and maidservants in the Lord’s land. They will make captives of their captors and rule over their oppressors.

The ‘aliens’ that the passage speaks of is referring to Gentiles uniting with eschatological Israel. In fact, in a number of significant passages it is God who gathers in the nations.[7] Thus in Isaiah it is God who says of “the foreigners who join themselves to the Lord” (Isa 56:3,6-8) and in Ezekiel, land is allotted to ‘foreigners’ as their inheritance and are to be considered as ‘native-born Israelites’ (Ezek 47:22-23).

So it would be fair to say that the majority of Christians today think that the church is the be all and end all of God’s purpose for mankind and that the nation of Israel is just an afterthought. But what we have discussed is the remarkable eschatological scenario where Israel once again takes centre stage, made up of both Jews and aliens/foreigners (Gentiles), which rules over the nations in the Millennial Kingdom with Jesus the Messiah installed as King.

Conclusion

As a result of this theological understanding, our attitudes in Christian life and practice must change. We understand the great debt that we owe to the Jewish people as Paul mentions in Rom 15:27;

They were pleased to do it, and indeed they owe it to them. For if the Gentiles have shared in the Jews’ spiritual blessings, they owe it to the Jews to share with them their material blessings.

One of the best ways to bless the Jewish people is sharing with them the truth about their Messiah, as Paul has says in Rom 1:16 that the gospel is for the Jew first and then the Gentile. Adopting this theological understanding would require a significant shift in our personal evangelism tactics and World Mission strategy and planning. Yet, no Christian should harbour any lesser attitude, and it breaks my heart to say, many Christians have continued and will continue to be anti-Judaic both racially and theologically.[8]

[6] Christopher Zoccali, ‘’And so all Israel will be saved’: Competing Interpretations of Romans 11.26 in Pauline Scholarship’, in Journal for the Study of the New Testament, Vol. 3 (2008), Issue 3, p 291, [cited: October 3, 2012] Online: http://jnt.sagepub.com/content/30/3/289.full.pdf